ITEM 6. ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 08-06-20 PRIMARY RECORD...Aug 06, 2020 · Page 1 of 1915 Berryman St10...

of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1915 Berryman St., Berkeley, CA P1. Other Identifier: None

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

State of California � The Resources Agency Primary #DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

PRIMARY RECORD TrinomialNRHP Status Code

Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date

*P2. Location: � Not for Publication � Unrestricted *a. County Alameda and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Oakland West Date 1993 Township & Range -- c. Address 1915 Berryman St. City Berkeley Zip 94709 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate)

Assessor’s Parcel Number 60-2449-13*P3a. Description: This residential building is set on the northwest street-corner of Berryman St. and Bonita Ave. on a 75 foot wide by 136 (easterly) to 141.5 foot deep (westerly) lot (its front property slightly skewed). Fronting southward towards Berryman with its east side on Bonita, the building is located towards the rear of the lot and is roughly centered side-to-side (east-west). A small garage outbuilding stands near the site’s northwest corner with a driveway from Bonita Avenue. Another driveway enters into the front of the parcel from Berryman St. and which extends into parking areas in front of and alongside the residences. Despite its street-corner setting, as the building is set back, it is largely obscured from the public ways by fencing, trees and vegetation. (cont.)

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3: multi- family property *P4.Resources Present: � Building� Structure � Object � Site � District� Element of District � OtherP5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) figs.1,4,5)AD,2020; 2)c1980 Sanborn; 3,6,7)MH,2020*P6. Date Constructed/Age andSource: � Historic � Prehistoric

� Both 1889 (hist.records); 1925 addition (permit)*P7. Owner and Address:Alon Danino 1493 Firebird Way Sunnyvale, CA 94087 *P8. Recorded by:Mark Hulbert446 17th St. #302Oakland, CA 94612*P9. Date Recorded:5/22/2020 rev.7/10/2020

*P10. Survey Type: Intensive*P11. Report Citation: City of Berkeley Landmark Application, 1915 Berryman St., June 2020

*Attachments: �NONE �Location Map �Continuation Sheet �Building, Structure, and Object Record�Archaeological Record �District Record �Linear Feature Record �Milling Station Record �Rock Art Record�Artifact Record �Photograph Record � Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

Fig.1 – 1915 Berryman St., Front (south) from street

ITEM 6. ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 08-06-20 Page 1 of 19

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1915 Berryman St., Berkeley *NRHP Status Code of 10

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information

State of California � The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

(This space reserved for official comments.)

(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)

B1. Historic Name: -- B2. Common Name: 1915 Berryman St. B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Multi-family (4 units) *B5. Architectural Style: Victorian Shingle *B6. Construction History: The 1915 Berryman Street property houses a residential building, 1-1/2 stories (single story over tall crawl space/cellar) at its front and back and 2-1/2 stories at its mid-section. The front and back appear to be what in part remain of an original, 1889 house; the mid-section a 1925 addition which level was provided with independent access, thus initiating the building’s conversion from single to multiple occupancy. Since, additional alterations have further expanded the residential use to, recently, three residential units with at least six different entry doors. (cont.)

*B7. Moved? �No �Yes �Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: Lord & Boynton *B10. Significance: Theme -- Area -- Period of Significance -- Property Type -- Applicable Criteria -- In sum, per an 1889 deed and an 1889-1890 directory listing, the existing building was constructed in 1889-1890 as a single-family house and with a 1925 permitted addition, which latter work included a detached garage. The existing building is, thus, visibly configured in three distinct parts: front, middle and rear. It may be presumed but is not a given – as at this juncture there is no original or early visual documentation – that the character of the original house in part remains at its front and rear segments, at least in part. (cont.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2: Single-family property *B12. References: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Berkeley, CA, 1911-c1980; City of Berkeley permit records and County of Alameda Assessor’s records, 1915 Berryman St.; United States census records, 1890-1940; Historic newspapers (@CDNC.org) and Alameda County directories (@SFPL.org); Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association archives; City of Berkeley Landmark Application, 1915 Berryman St., June 2020. B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect

*Date of Evaluation: 5/22/2020 rev.7/10/2020

Fig.2 – 1915 Berryman St.(arrow)

c1990 Sanborn

North

Berryman St.

Boni

ta A

ve.


age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date � Continuation � Update

DPR 523L (9/2013)

State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET

Property Name: 1915 Berryman St., Berkeley of 10

Description (continued):

There are essentially no views of the building from Berryman while there are glimpses of a wood shingled building from Bonita. Even on-site views of the building are limited. (cont.)

Fig.3 – 1915 Berryman St., view of house from Bonita Ave.

Fig.4 – 1915 Berryman St., front (south) from front driveway



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET



Overall, the existing building exterior is unpainted, dark wood shingled over painted horizontal board-sided (v-groove) crawl space walls separated by a continuous water table, over which the bottom course of shingling laps. A front wing projects forward under a front gabled roof. Otherwise, the roofs are hipped or shedded, including atop the 2-1/2 story mid-section, which has a low-sloped roof that sheds to the east and west from a central ridgeline. A small gabled dormer is partly visible atop the front hip roof.

The windows are mostly wood double-hung with several miscellaneous wood casements and a few metal replacements. There are three windows that have divided lites – a pair of upper sashes at the front wing and a lower sash unit at the front west side. The exterior doors are a variety of wood styles. As noted, there exist at least six different entry doors – three at the front porch, two at the east side porch and another at the rear porch. Also at the rear, covered exterior steps lead down to a cellar door. Window and door casings are flat wood boards with projecting window sills with molded apron trim. The only other molded trimwork is at the lower roof eaves, where there is a broad ogee trim (except where it has been replaced with gutters), whereas the projecting eave at the upper roof is a wood box atop the flat board fascia with a transitional molding. There are also a variety of wood doors and windows at the crawl space/cellar walls. One of which, at the projecting west side bay, has a sill with more pronounced wood trim and trim blocks below, yet which occur nowhere else on this building. (cont.)

Fig.5 – 1915 Berryman St., part east side



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET


Fig.6 – 1915 Berryman St., west side

Fig.7 – 1915 Berryman St., rear (north) from rear driveway



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET



The overall character of this residential building is curiously segmented, with the front and rear segments separated by the tall box-like mid-section, which physically bisects the former house. And the front, gabled wing is its only formal aspect. The entry stairs climb along the western side of this projecting wing to a recessed entry way under a shed roof shared with what is evidently an enclosed front porch, which has an aluminum sliding window at the front and a multi-lite fixed window at its western side wall.

It is very unlikely that the existing wood shingles are original to the 1889 building. Rather, it is more likely that they were added in the 1920s, or later, and there are also evident areas where the shingles are recent. That shingles stand proud of wood casings suggests that there are multiple layers of siding, at least at the oldest parts of the house. Construction History (continued):

A portion of block 16 of the 1875 Map of the Berkeley Villa Association, the property was acquired and its original house constructed in 1889, by and for Etta Payson, at which time the lot was twice as wide and more than twice as deep as the current parcel, as the original rear boundary was the line of Codornices Creek. Pre-1900, Berryman was named Gilman Street and Bonita was Louisa Street. In that period, the S.P.R.R. streetcar line ran along Shattuck to Rose and which was extended by 1910 along Henry Street directly east of this neighborhood, with a stop at what was called Berryman Station. Thus, the commuter streetcar is an historic context of this vicinity and which, evidently, provided a measure of convenience to the turn-of-the-century commuters of this neighborhood, including the husband of Etta, William H. Payson, an attorney with offices in San Francisco.

No deeds have been found for subsequent lot splits but, in 1919, when Etta Payson deeded her property to its next owner, Katherine O. Easton, it was still a double wide lot yet without its rearward half.

The existing adjacent parcel to the west was split off prior to 1925 by Easton, based on the evidence that Easton acquired a mortgage for just the subject lot in 1925.

As mentioned, other than deed records, no original documentation has at this juncture been located. The plan of the building was first depicted in the 1911 Sanborn map, when it was identified as a 1 story dwelling. May 1925 permit records follow, which are the first permit records available and that cryptically listed the work as “raise the roof on east and west; windows [on east and west]; shower bath toilet basin; steps front rear; hardwood flg. on main floor;” the owner listed as Mrs. K.O. Easton, the builder J.P. Wood. A second 1925 permit was taken for a 10x18 garage to be occupied by “1 machine” and, again, for Easton and by Wood. No architect is identified.

The 1929 Sanborn map recorded the bisected building with its 2 story mid-section and rearward garage. Most of the surrounding parcels were by then built upon with the exception of the parcel immediately to the west.

Thereafter, there was 1945 and 1946 building permit activity, the former for the “back outside stair to be fix[ed] up” and interior stair changed, the latter to change the porch window and close in a 6’ x 8’ porch. Each of those permits listed the owner as Harry Miller and identified the property as 2 family.

Real estate records further identify a 1942 owner as Hattie G. Parlett, who was listed in the 1935-1941 directories and in the 1940 census at 1915 Berryman; and the 1961 transfer of the property from Ruth E. Miller to Betty Ruth Geritz, Helen Marie Petrash and Edward Earnest Miller. (cont.)



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET


Construction History (continued):

Ownership chronology: Payson – 1889-1919 Easton – 1919-c1935 (occupied 1915 Berryman c1922-c1925) Parlett – c1935-c1942 Miller – c1942-1961 Miller/Petrash – 1961-2020

Beginning in 1955, miscellaneous permit and housing inspection records identify the building use as apartments. The last permit record under the Miller/Petrash family ownership was in 1994, when the use was then listed as a home plus three living units. Through most of this duration, the building was not owner-occupied. Significance (continued):

Although it was, originally, a Victorian era house, there is little architectural evidence of its period of origins as there is practically no period ornamentation. Which raises the question of whether it was originally a relatively plain house design for its period or whether original elements and materials were altered and removed as the former house was converted to multiple residences.

There are other contemporaneous houses in the direct vicinity and which, in addition to retaining single-family use as well as having direct street presence, are far more characteristic of their period (figs.8-10). Two properties westward on Berryman (#1905) is a late-Victorian Shingle style house with a distinctive range of materials and elements; directly behind the subject property is another modest yet dignified turn-of-the-20th century Shingle style house (#1234); and further down and across Bonita is a large and highly distinctive Shingle style residence (#1231). And there exist other surviving period houses in the direct vicinity in comparison to which 1915 Berryman is not equal aside from its generous corner site. The neighborhood and its context are otherwise a mix of residential types and periods, several relatively sizable apartment buildings included, a couple of which are direct neighbors to 1915 Berryman. Such a mix is also actually embodied in the subject multi-unit building. Associated Persons

As summarized above, the persons associated with the original and early residential uses included:

Etta L. and William H. Payson, he a S.F. attorney (per 1900 and 1910 censuses, 1889-1913 directories) and, also, briefly though perhaps erroneously identified in a 1907 news account as the president of Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP, SF Call, 30 July 1907; whereas an A. H. Payson appears to have been the railroad’s president in that period, nor does W. H. Payson’s name arise in the NWP historical information). Numerous news accounts additionally associate Payson with the First Unitarian Church.

Kimball G. Easton, an Oakland street construction engineer and treasurer (per 1920 census, 1925 directory), who passed away in the year that the addition was made to the house.

Katherine O. Easton, author (per 1922 directory); about whom no other specific information has been found, who resided here from c1922 until c1925 then appears to have moved away (listed in 1930 census in Tuolomne County).

The family of Harry V. and Ruth E. Miller, for whom no specific information has been located. (cont.)



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET


Associated Persons (continued):

During each of these individual ownership periods, the property was owner-occupied for periods thereof, so has for relatively long periods been a rental property, including in the last years of its existence as a single-family house.

Evaluation

Based on the above information and as per California Register of Historical Resources evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1 – There is no evidence of any specific events of any historic importance associated with this property or building. It is a private, residential property first developed in the late 19th century then further developed as a multi-unit residential building in the 1920s. Though associated with the turn of the 20th century suburban streetcar line, that general association applies to all of the numerous properties served by the streetcar system, including all of its contemporaneous neighbors.

Criterion 2 – Persons associated with construction of the 1889 residence, Etta and William Payson, have no identifiable historic importance relative to their residence. Contemporaneous news accounts record that the Paysons were closely associated with the Universalist church, yet which focused interest and association do not convey to their former home. Neither do the subsequent owners, Katherine and Kimball Easton, who were responsible for the 1925 multi-residential additions and alterations, have any identifiable importance. Thus, based on generally available information, there is no evidence of any historically important persons associated with the subject property and building.

Criterion 3 – In terms of potential design and construction importance, the existing residential building is a mix of parts without distinctive architectural origins. While portions of the original house appear to remain, the use and design of that former house has been severed into parts as well as from its origins, to the extent that whatever the design character of the original house was, relative to its period, is uncharacteristically basic and has been partially lost. Nor is the existing building identifiably distinctive of its turn-of-the-20th century architectural period whereas, in its historical context, potential significance would be on that basis – as a range of nearby homes demonstrably are. Neither is the mid-1920s addition of any potential design or construction distinction, in fact it is clumsily bisecting and assertive. So it is evident that the existing building lacks distinction as well as integrity relative to its original/early design and construction. Further, no original architect, engineer or designer has been identified so it must be presumed that the designer was the original owner (Payson) or builder (Lord & Boynton). Thus, it is not a notable work of an original designer and builder, while other original and intact works of the identified builders have been identified, whereas the subject 1889-90 residence is not. The 1920s add was constructed by J. P. Wood, whose work does not otherwise arise in historical records. Additionally, the extant property and building are without any artistic associations. Therefore, there is no identifiable significance under criterion 3.

Criterion 4 – Relative to potential historic architectural resources, the subject property has not yielded and at this juncture, beyond the contents of this report, does not appear to have any potential to yield additional information of any historical importance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the existing residential building at 1915 Berryman St. in Berkeley lacks any potential historical significance per the California Register criteria. Given the extent to which the property, building and its setting have been altered, relative to architectural aspects of integrity, the extant property and building lack integrity of design, materials and workmanship.



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET


As the association to its original use and users has also been lost and given the extent to which the setting has changed from that of its original and semi-rural period, the property and building also lack integrity of association and feeling. As the integrity of location is all that remains intact, the property and building lack historic integrity.

Fig.8 – 1905 Berryman St.

Fig.9 – 1234 Bonita St.



DPR 523L (9/2013)


CONTINUATION SHEET


Fig.9 – 1231 Bonita St.


446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 [email protected]

July 10, 2020 1915 Berryman St., Berkeley City of Berkeley Historical Evaluation As delineated below, per the City of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the property and building located at 1915 Berryman St. are not eligible for designation as a Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. The 1915 Berryman Street property houses a residential building on a generous corner site. The subject building is 1-1/2 stories (single story over tall crawl space/cellar) at its front and back and 2-1/2 stories at its mid-section. The front and back appear to be what remain of an original, 1889 house; the mid-section a 1925 addition with a dedicated entry door and internal stair and which initiated the conversion of the building to multiple units. Since, additional alterations have further expanded the residential use to, recently, three residential units with at least six different entry doors. In sum, per an 1889 deed and an 1889-1890 directory listing, the existing building was constructed in 1889-1890 as a single-family house and with a 1925 vertical addition, which latter work included the detached, extant garage. The existing building is, thus, visibly configured in three distinct parts: front, middle and rear (figs.1-3). It may be presumed but is not a given – as at this juncture there is no original or early visual documentation – that the character of the original house in part remains at its front and rear segments. Additional historical and descriptive information is included in the attached documentation.

3.24.110 Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit--Designation--Criteria for consideration. A. Landmarks and historic districts. General criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark or historic district designation are as follows:

1. Architectural merit:

a. Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region;

The property type of the subject resource is multi-family residential, though the building was originally single-family, yet added to and simultaneously converted to multi-family beginning in the 1920s.

Neither as single-family nor multi-family is the existing residential property and building “first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type” in this specific neighborhood, general vicinity or overall region.

Under this criterion, while there are a number of nearby residences that date to the same or earlier years, one suffices – 1317 Shattuck St., a c1885 dwelling that stands within several blocks of the subject property (fig.4).

That one example also readily addresses the criterion question of “most significant architectural property,” as the landmark residence at 1317 Shattuck has identified and potent architectural merit to which the existing building at 1915 Berryman does not compare. And

ITEM 6. ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 08-06-20 of 19

1915 BERRYMAN ST., BERKELEY COB EVAL–071020–P2

each of the other handful of nearby examples also exceed the architectural quality of the subject property and building (relevant examples include 1410 Bonita, 1892; 2001 Francisco, c1886-1889; 2043 Lincoln, c1889; 1418 Spruce, 1885; and 1536 Oxford, 1889 – figs.5-9).

And yet, the subject property type is multi-residential. While the 1929 and 1950 Sanborn maps specifically identify numerous multi-family properties/buildings within one block of the subject property, one of the earliest and best architectural examples readily suffices – the c1904 multi-family residential building at 1939-1945 Berryman, one block directly east of the subject property.

b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder; or

There is no evidence that the subject property or building embody any outstanding historic architectural qualities. Relative to its Victorian Style period of origin, its original character is not specifically known while, compared to numerous and readily identified others in the immediate vicinity, the extant building is a poor architectural example of the Victorian period and style. Further, no architect, engineer or designer has been directly identified so it must be presumed that the designer was the original owner (Payson) or builder (Lord & Boynton). There is additionally no evidence of any outstanding construction character – in fact, the subject building’s construction is rudimentary. Thus, it is not a notable work of an original designer/builder, while other original and intact works of the identified builders have been identified.

The subject property and building were also substantially altered beginning in the mid-1920s, when a second story was added, which level was provided with independent access, thus initiating the building’s conversion from single to multiple occupancy.

c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

The subject building is a mix of parts without exceptional architectural origins or character. Given its history of occupancy and alteration, there is also no evidence of any qualitative historical consideration or concern by any of its owners. While portions of the original house generally appear to remain, the use and design of that former house has been severed into parts as well as from its origins, to the extent that whatever the design character of the original house was, relative to its Victorian period, was uncharacteristically basic and has been partially lost. Nor is the existing building identifiably distinctive of its turn-of-the-20th century architectural period whereas, in its historical context, potential significance would be on that basis – as a range of nearby homes demonstrably are. Neither is the mid-1920s addition of any potential design or construction distinction, in fact it is clumsily bisecting and assertive.

The subject building has no preservation-worthy characteristics or values relative to its neighborhood, where there exist other contemporaneous period houses and which, in addition to retaining single-family use as well as having direct street presence, are far more characteristic of their period. Two properties westward on Berryman (#1905, c1910) is a late-Victorian Shingle Style house with a distinctive range of materials and elements, while directly behind the subject property is another dignified late-19th century Shingle Style house



(#1234 Bonita, c1893). Moreover, just to the north and across Bonita stands a large Shingle Style residence (#1231 Bonita, c1906 – figs.10-11), which is clearly the most distinctive historic architectural example in the immediate neighborhood. Compared to each of these direct examples, the subject house pales. And as summarized above, there exist numerous other surviving period houses in the direct vicinity in comparison to which 1915 Berryman is not equal.

Further, to the extent that these specific examples house multiple units, and which is likely, the added units did not forfeit the original architecture, as happened when the subject building was converted to multiple units from the 1920s into the 1950s.

The neighborhood and its context are otherwise a mix of residential types and periods, several 20th century apartment buildings included, several of which are direct neighbors to 1915 Berryman. Such a mix is also actually embodied in the subject multi-unit building.

2. Cultural value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City;

The subject residential property has no direct association to cultural developments important to the City. Based on numerous news accounts, its original owners, the Paysons, were closely associated with the Universalist church, yet which focused interest and association do not convey to their former home. Furthermore, the reality is that, relative to the existing property and building, the Payson association has long been lost.

3. Educational value: Structures worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force;

The subject residential property and building have no educational usefulness. They are a composite of which the early-to-mid 20th century multi-family character and use are dominant. There is also no recordation or clear understanding of the subject building’s original form, which has been altered and obscured by subsequent additions, alterations and deterioration.

4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious or military;

The subject building is neither preservation worthy nor would the property or building express or embody the history of Berkeley. The subject property and its building have no intact relationship to the intact late-19th and early-20th century residences directly adjacent and adjoining, several of which definitively express their historical context and period.

5. Any property which is listed on the National Register described in Section 470A of Title 16 of the United States Code.

The subject property and building are not listed on the National Register.

B. Structures of merit. Criteria which the commission shall use when considering a structure for structure of merit designation are as follows:

1. General criteria shall be architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If upon assessment of a structure, the commission finds that the structure does not currently meet the criteria as set out for a landmark, but it is worthy of preservation as part of a



neighborhood, a block or a street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings which includes landmarks, that structure may be designated a structure of merit.

A demonstrably poor as well as substantially altered former residence, the subject building has no preservation-worthy characteristics or values relative to its neighborhood, block or street frontages, which comprise a mix of single and multi-family residential uses and buildings. And of each type, there are numerous and far better examples.

2. Specific criteria include, but are not limited to one or more of the following:

a. The age of the structure is contemporary with (1) a designated landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings, or (2) an historic period or event of significance to the City, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.

b. The structure is compatible in size, scale, style, materials or design with a designated landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.

One Berkeley Landmark stands within the subject neighborhood, one block west of the subject property – the Maybeck House #1 at 1300 MLK Jr. Way. The 1892-1902 Maybeck House is contemporaneous with the origins of the subject building. It also shares a mixed character, as neither of those original single-family residences are intact. Nonetheless, the significance of the Maybeck House is contingent on its original owner and architect, Bernard Maybeck, a historic Berkeley architect with an international architectural reputation and without which the Maybeck House would not have mustered designation (notably, despite the Maybeck provenance, the vote to designate the property was won by the narrow margin of 5-4).

Lacking evidence of any architect, etc., it may be presumed that the original subject building was the design of either its owner or its builder. In either event, the subject property has no origins that even approximate the Maybeck House. Moreover, given subsequent additions and alterations, the original building does not exist as a work of architecture. Moreover, its substantive additions were also not the product of any identifiable architect, etc., so must again be presumed to have been the design of the then owner or builder.

The subject property and building are also lack direct associations to any significant historic period or event.

c. The structure is a good example of architectural design.

The subject building is a poor example of architectural design.

d. The structure has historical significance to the City and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.

The subject building has no identifiable historical significance relative to the City or to its neighborhood, block, street frontage or group of buildings. Its alteration and degradation have severed the subject building from its early associations.

In conclusion, the property and building at 1915 Berryman Street, Berkeley lacks potential historical significance under the criteria of the City of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.



Signed:

. Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect & Historic Resources Consultant

attached: figs.1-11 (pp.5-9); 1915 Berryman St., DPR forms

Fig.1 - 1915 Berryman St., front looking north from Berryman St. sidewalk (all photos MH2020)



Fig.2 - 1915 Berryman St., east side from Bonita Ave. sidewalk

Fig.3 - 1915 Berryman St., rear from Bonita Ave. sidewalk



Fig.4– 1317 Shattuck Ave., c1885

Fig.5 – 1418 Spruce St., 1885



Fig.6 – 1410 Bonita Ave., c1892

Fig.7 – 2001 Francisco St., c1886-1889

Fig.8 – 2043 Lincoln St., c1889

Fig.9 – 1536 Oxford St., 1889



Figs.10-11 – 1231 Bonita Ave., c1906


ITEM 6. ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 08-06-20 PRIMARY RECORD...Aug 06, 2020 · Page 1 of 1915 Berryman St10...

Documents

Transcript of ITEM 6. ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 08-06-20 PRIMARY RECORD...Aug 06, 2020 · Page 1 of 1915 Berryman St10...